In this study, we examined students’ experiences regarding precollege engineering curricula, classroom environments, and their experiences with the creative process in two engineering courses offered in a university-based summer enrichment program. Applying provisional and open coding to interview data from 16 participants, an Input–Process–Outcome Model of Collaborative Creativity (IPOCC model) was developed. The IPOCC model expands the 4P model of creativity to incorporate more collaborative contexts. The IPOCC model suggests that in K–12 collaborative practice, creativity involves group-level considerations in addition to individual-level components. The IPOCC model offers insights for educators in terms of input components, group processes, and mediating factors that can facilitate learners’ engagement in creative teamwork. The findings of this study indicated that a combination of challenging tasks, open-ended problems, and student teamwork provides a rich environment for learners’ engagement to think creatively.
AltanE. B.TanS. (2020). Concepts of creativity in design-based learning in STEM education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(3), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09569-y
2.
AndermanE. M.DawsonH. (2011). Learning with motivation. In MayerR. E.AlexanderP. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 219–241). Routledge.
3.
AppioF. P.MartiniA.MassaS.TestaS. (2017). Collaborative network of firms: Antecedents and state-of-the-art properties. International Journal of Production Research, 55(7), 2121–2134. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2016.1262083
4.
ArandaM. L.LieR.GuzeyS. S. (2020). Productive thinking in middle school science students’ design conversations in a design-based engineering challenge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09498-5
BlashkiK.NicholS.JiaD.PrompramoteS. (2007). “The future is old”: Immersive learning with generation Y engineering students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(4), 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790701334228
8.
BorgeM.WhiteB. (2016). Toward the development of socio-metacognitive expertise: An approach to developing collaborative competence. Cognition and Instruction, 34(4), 323–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1215722
9.
BrophyJ. E. (2004). Motivating students to learn. McGraw-Hill.
BryanC. (2004). Assessing the creative work of groups. In MiellD.LittletonK. (Eds.), Collaborative creativity: Contemporary perspectives (pp. 52–64). Free Association Books.
12.
CampbellJ. L.QuincyC.OssermanJ.PedersenO. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475
13.
CapobiancoB. M.Diefes-duxH. A.MenaI.WellerJ. (2011). What is an engineer? Implications of elementary school student conceptions for engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 304–328. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00015.x
14.
CenL.RutaD.PowellL.HirschB.NgJ. (2016). Quantitative approach to collaborative learning: Performance prediction, individual assessment, and group composition. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(2), 187–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9234-6
15.
ChanC. K. K. (2013). Collaborative knowledge building. Towards a knowledge creation perspective. In Hmelo-SilverC. E.ChinnC. A.ChanC.O’DonnellA. M. (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 437–461). Routledge.
16.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE.
17.
CharytonC.MerrillJ. A. (2009). Assessing general creativity and creative engineering design in first year engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 98, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01013.x
18.
CohenE.LotanR. (2014). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
19.
CohenE.LotanR.WhitcombJ.BalderramaM.CosseyR.SwansonP. (1994). Complex instruction: Higher order thinking in heterogeneous classrooms. In SharanS. (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 82–96). Greenwood Press.
20.
CreswellJ. W. (2012). Education research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
21.
CreswellJ. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE.
22.
CropleyD. H. (2015a). Creativity in engineering. In CorazzaG. E.AgnoliS. (Eds.), Multidisciplinary contributions to the science of creative thinking (pp. 155–173). Springer.
23.
CropleyD. H. (2015b). Creativity in engineering: Novel solutions to complex problems. Academic Press.
24.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Flow, the psychology of optimal experience. Harper Collins.
25.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1996). The creative personality. Psychology Today, 29(4), 36–40.
26.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (2014). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In CsikszentmihalyiM. (Ed.), The systems model of creativity (pp. 47–61). Springer.
27.
DalyS. R.MosyjowskiE. A.SeifertC. M. (2014). Teaching creativity in engineering courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(3), 417–449. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20048
28.
DalyS. R.YilmazS.ChristianJ. L.SeifertC. M.GonzalezR. (2012). Design heuristics in engineering concept generation. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 601–629. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01121.x
29.
DarnonC.DollS.ButeraF. (2007). Dealing with a disagreeing partner: Relational and epistemic conflict elaboration. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(3), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173423
30.
DavisG. A.RimmS. B.SiegleD. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
31.
DoyleC. L. (2019). Speaking of creativity: Frameworks, models, and meanings. In MullenC. (Ed.), Creativity theory and action in education: Vol. 3. Creativity under duress in education? Resistive theories, practices, and actions (pp. 41–62). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90272-2_3
GavinM. K.AdelsonJ. L. (2008). Mathematics, elementary. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 367–394). Prufrock Press.
34.
GlăveanuV. P. (2015). Creativity as a sociocultural act. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 49(3), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.94
35.
GlăveanuV. P.Hanchett HansonM.BaerJ.BarbotB.ClappE. P.CorazzaG. E.. . . SternbergR. J. (2020). Advancing creativity theory and research: A socio-cultural manifesto. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(3), 741–745. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.395
36.
GregersonM.SnyderH.KaufmanJ. (2012). Teaching creatively and teaching creativity. Springer.
37.
GresalfiM.MartinT.HandV.GreenoJ. (2009). Constructing competence: An analysis of student participation in the activity systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9141-5
38.
GruszkaA.TangM. (2017). The 4P’s creativity model and its application in different fields. In TangM.WernerC. H. (Eds.), Handbook of the management of creativity and innovation: Theory and practice (pp. 51–71). World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813141889_0003
39.
GubbelsJ.SegersE.VerhoevenL. (2014). Cognitive, socioemotional, and attitudinal effects of a triarchic enrichment program for gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(4), 378–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214552565
40.
HämäläinenR.VähäsantanenK. (2011). Theoretical and pedagogical perspectives on orchestrating creativity and collaborative learning. Educational Research Review, 6(3), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.08.001
41.
HarmsM.KennelV.Reiter-PalmonR. (2017). Team creativity: Cognitive processes underlying problem solving. In Reiter-PalmonR. (Ed.), Team creativity and innovation (pp. 61–86). Oxford University Press.
Hmelo-SilverC. E.ChinnC. A.ChanC.O’DonnellA. M. (2016). The international handbook of collaborative learning. Routledge.
44.
HochJ. E.KozlowskiS. W. J. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 390–403. https://doi.org/10.1037/t03624-000
45.
HodgesJ.McIntoshJ.GentryM. (2017). The effect of an out-of-school enrichment program on the academic achievement of high-potential students from low-income families. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(3), 204–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17715304
46.
HülshegerU. R.AndersonN.SalgadoJ. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1146. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015978
47.
IvinsonG. (2004). The social consequences of classroom art: Collaboration, social identities and social representations. In MiellD.LittletonK. (Eds.), Collaborative creativity: Contemporary perspectives (pp. 96–109). Free Association Books.
48.
JadallahM.AndersonR. C.Nguyen-JahielK.MillerB. W.KimI. H.KuoL. J.. . . WuX. (2011). Influence of a teacher’s scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194–230. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210371498
49.
JankowskaD. M.OmelańczukI.CzerwonkaM.KarwowskiM. (2019). Exploring links between creative abilities, creative personality and subclinical autistic traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 142(1), 226–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.008
JordanS.PereiraN.DalrympleO. (2016). The impact of design swapping on student design sketch quality. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5), 1984–1998.
52.
JuhlJ.LindegaardH. (2013). Representations and visual synthesis in engineering design. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 20–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20001
KapurM. (2014). Comparing learning from productive failure and vicarious failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 651–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.819000
55.
KarwowskiM.LebudaI.WisniewskaE.GralewskiJ. (2013). Big Five personality traits as the predictors of creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity: Does gender matter?The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(3), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.32
56.
KazerounianK.FoleyS. (2007). Barriers to creativity in engineering education: A study of instructors and student’s perceptions. Journal of Mechanical Design, 129(7), 761–768. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2739569
57.
KimM. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of enrichment programs on gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216630607
LaeversF.HeylenL.DanielsD. (2006). Experience-based learning for 6-12 year-olds in elementry education. CEGO Publishers.
60.
LeeI. R.KempleK. (2014). Preservice teachers’ personality traits and engagement in creative activities as predictors of their support for children’s creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26(1), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.873668
61.
LeeL. E.MeyerM. S.CrutchfieldK. (2021). Gifted classroom environments and the creative process: A systematic review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 44(2), 107–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532211001450
62.
LietaertS.De FraineB.BuyseE.LaeversF.VerschuerenK. (2013). Is typisch ook stereotypisch? Een leerkrachtstijl voor het verhogen van de betrokkenheid van jongens en meisjes [Is typical also stereotypical? A teaching style to increase engagement of boys and girls]. Impuls voor Onderwijsbegeleiding, 43(4), 195–203.
63.
LiuD.ChenX. P.YaoX. (2011). From autonomy to creativity: A multilevel investigation of the mediating role of harmonious passion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 294–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021294
64.
LubartT. (2018). Creativity across the seven Cs. In SternbergR. J.KaufmanJ. C. (Eds.), The nature of human creativity (pp. 134–146). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108185936.012
65.
MiellD.LittletonK. (2004). Collaborative creativity: Contemporary perspectives. Free Association Books.
66.
MouwJ. M.SaabN.JanssenJ.VedderP. (2019). Quality of group interaction, ethnic group composition, and individual mathematical learning gains. Social Psychology of Education, 22(2), 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09482-w
67.
Museum of Science. (2009). Catching the wind: Designing windmills.
NickersonR. S. (2000). Enhancing creativity. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 392–430). Cambridge University Press.
70.
O’HearS.Sefton-GreenJ. (2004). Creative “communities”: How technology mediates social worlds. In MiellD.LittletonK. (Eds.), Collaborative creativity, contemporary perspectives (pp. 113–125). Free Association Books.
71.
Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2003). Special summer and Saturday programs for gifted students. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 219–228). Allyn & Bacon.
72.
PageS. E. (2008). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies-new edition. Princeton University Press.
73.
PattonM. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE.
74.
PluckerJ. A.BeghettoR.DowG. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to education psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychology, 39(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
75.
PluckerJ. A.McNeelyA.MorganC. (2009). Controlled substance-related beliefs and use: Relationships to undergraduates’ creative personality traits. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(2), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01308.x
76.
PoonJ. C.AuA. C.TongT. M.LauS. (2014). The feasibility of enhancement of knowledge and self-confidence in creativity: A pilot study of a three-hour SCAMPER workshop on secondary students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 14, 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.06.006
77.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.012
Reiter-PalmonR.de VreedeT.de VreedeG. J. (2013). Leading interdisciplinary creative teams: Challenges and solutions. In HemlinS.AllwoodC. M.MartinB.MumfordM. D. (Eds.), Creativity and leadership in science, technology, and innovation (pp. 240–267). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203499733
80.
Reiter-PalmonR.WigertB.de VreedeT. (2012). Team creativity and innovation: The effect of group composition, social processes, and cognition. In MumfordM. D. (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 295–326). Academic Press.
81.
RenzulliJ. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212444901
82.
RenzulliJ. S.D’SouzaS. (2014). Intelligences outside the normal curve: Co-cognitive factors that contribute to the creation of social capital and leadership skills in young people. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 343–361). Prufrock Press.
83.
RhodesM. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310.
84.
RichardsonC.MishraP. (2018). Learning environments that support student creativity: Developing the SCALE. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.11.004
85.
RobinsonA.ShoreB. M.EnersenD. L. (2007). Compacting the curriculum. In RobinsonA.ShoreB. M.EnersenD. L. (Eds.), Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide (pp. 117–222). Prufrock Press.
86.
RogatT. K.WithamS. A.ChinnC. A. (2014). Teachers’ autonomy-relevant practices within an inquiry-based science curricular context: Extending the range of academically significant autonomy-supportive practices. Teachers College Record, 116(7), 1–46.
87.
RubensteinL. D.RidgleyL. M.CallanG. L.KaramiS.EhlingerJ. (2018). How teachers perceive factors that influence creativity development: Applying a Social Cognitive Theory perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.012
88.
RuncoM. A.AcarS.CayirdagN. (2017). A closer look at the creativity gap and why students are less creative at school than outside of school. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 242–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.04.003
RuncoM. A.PagnaniA. (2011). Psychological research on creativity. In Sefton-GreenJ.ThomsonP. P.JonesK.BreslerL. (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of creative learning (pp. 63–71). Routledge.
91.
SaldañaJ. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). SAGE.
92.
SawyerR. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
93.
SawyerR. K. (2018). An interdisciplinary study of group creativity. In SternbergR. J.KaufmanJ. C. (Eds.), The nature of human creativity (pp. 280–290). Cambridge University Press.
94.
SawyerR. K.DeZutterS. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Journal of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013282
95.
SearleR. H. (2004). Creativity and innovation in teams. In MiellD.LittletonK. (Eds.), Collaborative creativity: Contemporary perspectives (pp. 175–188). Free Association Books.
SinatraG. M.HeddyB. C.LombardiD. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924
98.
SlavinR. E. (2011). Instruction based on cooperative learning. In MayerR. E.AlexanderP. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 219–241). Routledge.
SpoonR.RubensteinL. D.TerwillegarS. R. (2021). Team effectiveness in creative problem solving: Examining the role of students’ motivational beliefs and task analyses in team performance. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, Article 100792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100792
101.
StarkoA. J. (2014). Creativity in the classroom (5th ed.). Routledge.
102.
SternbergR. J. (2003). Creative thinking in the classroom. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830308595
103.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
104.
SullivanF. R. (2011). Serious and playful inquiry: Epistemological aspects of collaborative creativity. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 55–65.
TreffingerD. J.SchoonoverP. F.SelbyE. C. (2013). Educating for creativity and innovation. Prufrock Press.
107.
TreffingerD. J.YoungG. C.SelbyE. C.ShepardsonC. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
108.
WangZ.DongS. (2019). Autonomy as core of creativity and compliance: Moderated moderation model of maternal parenting behaviors. Creativity Research Journal, 31(1), 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1577674
109.
WatanabeM. (2012). “Heterogenius” classrooms: Detracking in math & science. Teachers College Press.
110.
WebbN. M.NemerK. M.IngM. (2006). Small-group reflections: Parallels between teacher discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 63–119. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_8
111.
WebbN. M.PalincsarA. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In BerlinerD.CalfeeR. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–876). Macmillan.
112.
WirtanenS.LittletonK. (2004). Collaboration, conflict and the musical identity work of solo students: The significance of the student–teacher relationship. In MiellD.LittletonK. (Eds.), Collaborative creativity: Contemporary perspectives (pp. 26–39). Free Association Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
